Rose Winters
www.facebook.com/cosmic.cog

When I was a child, there were 15 vaccines recommended before enrollment in kindergarten. Now if you follow the CDC’s recommendations, your child will receive 49. Why should parents be concerned about this? After all, the polio vaccine eradicated polio, right? The more vaccines the merrier right? Stop for a second and think about this. There has never been a study that shows the cumulative effect of this many vaccines on a human body, and the children receiving this many doses of vaccines, which contain ingredients that are known neurotoxins are truly guinea pigs. Fast forward a few hundred years from now in the mind’s eye, and take a look at where we are going to be if we continue on this current trajectory. The vaccine manufacturers are developing new patents to vaccines at an alarming rate and the recommended boosters have increased in frequency to the degree that at some point, every child and adult will be required to get multiple vaccines a year.

"20% of all corporate crime is now committed by pharmaceutical companies, and those are just the cases that are litigated and settled. The problem with corruption in scientific studies that are used to approve drugs do not even come up in litigation...In the past three and a half years alone (2009 to mid-2012), criminal and civil penalties have totaled $18bn, well over half the total for the past 21 years. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) topped the list of repeat offenders with total criminal and civil penalties of $7.56bn since 1991, comprised six different federal settlements and an additional number with states. Pfizer was the second highest with $2.96bn. Overall, since 1991, 11 other companies also had criminal or civil settlements or both exceeding $50m on at least two occasions." —Dr. Sidney M Wolfe, British Medical Journal

I can picture it now: Advertisements to the tune of "Time for your summer/spring/fall/winter vaccine". Eventually, even that will be replaced by "Get your monthly vaccine". Where does it end?

When the pharmaceutical industry introduced the measles vaccine in 1963, measles was already on a sharp decline. This pattern is also true for other vaccines.

Why should we be concerned? A vaccine forces the immune system to bypass the part where the person gets sick as well as the natural processes that our immune systems have developed over the millennia to kill a virus and develop lifelong immunity. Injecting a child with a multi-dose vaccine like MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) or DTaP (Diptheria, Tetanus, Acellular Pertussis) and accompanying either of those with Hib, Varicella/Chicken Pox, Heb B, etc. in one doctor visit, is forcing the child to produce immunity to all of these viruses at once, when these diseases would never have been encountered in that way in a natural environment.

Multiple injections are needed, and the immature infant must have these pathogens introduced out of nowhere into their bodies, when in a natural setting they would be introduced slowly, one at a time, (inhaled or introduced through the mouth) and handled entirely differently by the body.

The human body has co-evolved with these viruses and the human immune system is designed to get stronger with each interaction with any of these invaders. It was not designed to replicate and mimic these viruses all in one day when injected with weakened or dead versions.

By thinking that we can bypass nature’s design for a healthy immune system, we are creating a gene pool where no one has any natural (real) immunity against anything. It is getting to the point where it is almost criminalized if your child develops chickenpox, and who is to say that a human can even develop a healthy immune system without some of these triggers? What is the evolutionary purpose of viruses in the first place? Why has the human immune system adapted the ability to build lifelong immunity to specific viruses, and what happens when we replace that with artificial immunity which requires "boosters" since the immunity from the vaccines wanes over time?

"At the present moment, intelligent people do not have their children vaccinated, nor does the law now compel them to. The result is not, as the Jennerians prophesied, the extermination of the human race by smallpox; on the contrary more people are now killed by vaccination than by smallpox." —George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), the only person ever awarded a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award

Pro Vaccine Campaign Exposed!, youtube.com

Yes, it would be great if we could eliminate all diseases, all childhood suffering, but that goes against all natural laws, and we should consider the purpose of viruses in the first place. We should also consider that viruses mutate in order to survive, and we are potentially creating “superbugs” to which no one has the ability to fight. What if mild childhood diseases like chickenpox are training the immune system so that it has experience when it comes into something more deadly? There are many doctors who are now beginning to question whether or not it is beneficial to the body to bypass the natural function of the immune system. To think that the "science is settled" is so far from the truth, but that doesn't mean the manufacturers (who oversee their own studies on their own products) will not use that as a selling point.

The pharmaceutical companies would like us to believe that health comes from an injection or can be swallowed in a pill. It would suit them just fine if every American were on prescription meds and took bi-annual injections to all the new vaccines in development, and boosters to the ones already received. When you look at the number of pills that have been recalled over the years that were once approved by the FDA, as well as the tweaks they have done on the vaccine schedule, (DTP was replaced with DTaP, oral polio vaccine was banned in the US after causing acute flaccid paralysis, mercury was replaced with aluminum in most of the childhood vaccines)—all of this was done quietly, with no admission of guilt, they do not want to ruin their reputation by saying that they had to get these things off of the market because of the damage they had caused. There were no formal apologies for the numerous children injured by these vaccines that have since been taken off of the market.

The truth is, the science isn't settled. The truth is, there is a Bill sitting in the US Congress right now HR 1757 proposed to actually study vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, but that Bill has been stalled, and likely will not be passed as the pharmaceutical companies have more lobbyists in Washington than any other industry. They will fight tooth and nail to keep a study of this nature from being conducted, because they already know that vaccines are incredibly damaging to developing children. They use the excuse that a study of this nature would be unethical because it would need to be a "double-blind" study in which neither the doctors nor the parents would know if their child was vaccinated or not. This would mean that some parents who want to have their child vaccinated would not be able to, and some parents who do not want their child vaccinated would.

"In this 2008 report, CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson discusses the conflicts of interest in those supposedly ‘independent’ sources that back the government’s assertion that vaccines and autism are not related. AAP, Every Child by Two and Dr. Paul Offit all receive hundreds in thousands of dollars in funding from Pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines, they do not disclose how much money they make, and yet claim that these huge sums of money in no way influence their stance on vaccine safety. Katie Couric was the news anchor in this report, and therefore is obviously familiar with these conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry." —Dr. Sidney M Wolfe, British Medical Journal

Of course, a double-blind study is the most reliable study, but to use "ethics" as a reason to not do a study and continue to recommend the schedule is one of the most unethical things I have ever heard. So rather than study the children who are already unvaccinated and allow parents to retain the freedom to decide for their children, they would rather push the vaccine schedule on everyone, with no study at all? Yeah, real ethical. Of course, that is all bullshit and everyone who conducts their own research into the vaccine ingredients knows it. Everyone with a vaccine-injured child knows it. Everyone with a healthy unvaccinated child with none of these neurological, autoimmune disorders that have to fight to retain the freedom to choose for their child knows it.

The medical records of every child born in the US are now digital, there are databases that track vaccination rates. We have the technology to use the existing data to cross-reference vaccination rates with autoimmune disorders, cancers, leukemia, autism, asthma, etc. Why do we never see any of this information to determine if these disorders are happening in children that are unvaccinated?

They are pushing hard to eliminate unvaccinated children as a control group, so that one day everyone will believe that these disorders at these rates are just a part of the human condition--(and even now there are ignorant folks who think that something mysterious has happened to the human genome in the last 30 years or so). There is no mystery.

We should be at the height of human evolution, and instead, we have been led to believe that all of these disorders are genetic or inherited. Human evolution (or any type of cell-based evolution) does not work that way. We were never meant to be reliant on the pharmaceutical companies to be healthy, but the number of children requiring continuous medical care is growing daily.

Big Pharma wants lifelong customers, giving every child a vaccine within 24 hours of birth goes a long way in creating a large customer base. Continuing the assault on the human body at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and so on almost guarantees it.

Do not let your child become a statistic. Research the ingredients in vaccines, start with aluminum.


Every couple of months, there is a coordinated attempt to bring the vaccine debate into the national spotlight and create a sort of mass hysteria. With the failure of the flu vaccine, the recent hype about measles serves as a necessary diversion to draw attention from the failing flu vaccine. This month measles, two months ago Ebola (the vaccine is conveniently sitting on the back burner waiting to be "fast tracked" for approval), next month when Gardasil 9 is scheduled to be released, it will be HPV and cervical cancer that make the headlines. The Disney connection with a cartoon Mickey with pink bumps on his face is perfect, it makes a great headline and stirs up a nice frenzy... They are depending on the masses that only skim headlines to react with fear and provoke them to attack those that do not vaccinate. In situations such as these, even if the majority of cases in the "outbreak" are vaccinated individuals, they will always blame the unvaccinated.

"Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors to vaccination should stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defence of their conviction." —Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

The reason they are stooping to this level is that there are so many people who have started researching vaccines, and decide that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. They will continue to manipulate the masses with misinformation because when they stir up the debate, parents start to turn on other parents, which turns into people backing legislation which makes it harder for parents to opt-out. When enough people are scared of mild childhood diseases, and think vaccines are safe, it makes it easier to push them on everyone. With the number of vaccine-injured children growing daily, many parents with a vaccine-injured child will not vaccinate their other children, and anyone who spends a significant amount of time researching vaccines will never go back to trusting the standard motto: "safe and effective".

They must go to great lengths to keep up the illusion and generate these debates publicly and paint the unvaccinated children out as a threat.


Whether you're pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, or fall somewhere in the middle, the questions you need to ask yourselves are as follows:

Do you want to live in a world, where you cannot freely refuse a medical procedure that carries the risk of injury or death? I'm not questioning your comfort level with today's vaccine schedule, because today's vaccine schedule will change. New vaccines and additional doses are added all the time. children today receive as many as 49 doses of 14 vaccines before they reach age six, which is roughly 12 times higher than the number of vaccines administered to children back in 1940. With more than 220 new vaccines in the developmental pipeline for children and adults, and no end in sight..the question you must ask yourself is ARE YOU CERTAIN you will be 100% comfortable with vaccines that are added to the mandated list in the future?

If you say that yes, you're comfortable, then you're either,

A) not expecting to be a parent or grandparent,

B) don't have to worry about it because your kids are grown and out of the house, or

C) lying to prove a point. No critical thinker, no honest person, would ever sign off on the sight-unseen vaccine schedule of the future. And yet that's what you're doing when you condemn the people who are fighting for your right to refuse.

YOU have the right to refuse, should you ever choose to use it, because the very "anti-vaccine" people you demonize have been fighting for us all.

Right now, the burden of "herd immunity" falls on small children, but that is changing. Vaccine manufacturers see an untapped market in adult vaccines and are coming for you next. What will you do if your state, your employer, or your insurance company forces you to get a vaccine that you simply don't want? It hasn't happened to you yet, but if the right to refuse is eroded, it will happen to you sooner than you might think.

Who then will you turn to?

  • Your legislators who get campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies.
  • The CDC that has former pharma executives sitting on the board?
  • Who will you turn to if you ever want to say no? There will be no one.

Once we enter the slippery slope of removing an individual's right to refuse medical procedures that carry a risk of injury or death, once we remove an individual's right to speak for him/herself and his/her children, we open ourselves up to an insidious new era, where other drugs and other procedures can be mandated. I heard (on NPR, interestingly enough) that there are people who want to test for a gene marker that's been found in mass shooters in the hopes that they can put the carriers of that gene on medications in early childhood.

Sounds great, right? But many of us carry genes that will never be expressed. You could be a carrier of that gene. Or your child could be a carrier. So if we follow the "for the greater good" mentality behind vaccines (or the Nazis "for the greater good" mentality behind eugenics (breeding out illness). We are looking at forcing people who may never express a sociopathic gene to take antipsychotics, just in case. Because that's what forced vaccination does. It asks children who may never come into contact with a particular virus to accept a vaccine just in case. And that's what eugenics was all about. It sterilizes people who can pass on a genetic disease just in case. Forced vaccination is a human rights violation, and to support it when you know that the government's own VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) exists and lists people who have died as a result of vaccines is unethical at best, sociopathic at worst.

The ethical thing to do is to allow people their right to refuse and leave it up to doctors and big pharma, who have marketing budgets larger than the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of some countries, to do a better job of convincing parents that vaccines are safe. We can start by reversing the law that grants vaccine manufacturers total immunity from vaccine injury lawsuits. Because as it stands, you can't sue a vaccine manufacturer if your child is injured or killed by a vaccine, even in cases where they could've made a safer vaccine and chose not to or when they failed to recall a contaminated lot# in a timely manner. Think about that. You can't sue the manufacturer. That immunity from liability does more to shake parents' confidence in vaccines than anything else out there.